Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
There’s an interesting study out on the natural pH changes in the ocean. I discussed some of these pH changes a year ago in my post “The Electric Oceanic Acid Test“. Before getting to the new study, let me say a couple of things about pH.
The pH scale measures from zero to fourteen. Seven is neutral, because it is the pH of pure water. Below seven is acidic. Above seven is basic. This is somewhat inaccurately but commonly called “alkaline”. Milk is slightly acidic. Baking soda is slightly basic (alkaline).
Figure 1. pH scale, along with some examples.
The first thing of note regarding pH is that alkalinity is harder on living things than is acidity. Both are corrosive of living tissue, but alkalinity has a stronger effect. It seems counterintuitive, but it’s true. For example, almost all of our foods are acidic. We eat things with a pH of 2, five units below the neutral reading of 7 … but nothing with a corresponding pH of 12, five units above neutral. The most alkaline foods are eggs (pH up to 8) and dates and crackers (pH up to 8.5). Heck, our stomach acid has a pH of 1.5 to 3.0, and our bodies don’t mind that at all … but don’t try to drink Drano, the lye will destroy your stomach.
That’s why when you want to get rid of an inconvenient body, you put lye on it, not acid. It’s also why ocean fish often have a thick mucus layer over their skin, inter alia to protect them from the alkalinity. Acidity is no problem for life compared to alkalinity.
Next, a question of terminology. When a base is combined with an acid, for example putting baking soda on spilled car battery acid, that is called “neutralizing” the acid. This is because it is moving towards neutral. Yes, it increases the pH, but despite that, it is called “neutralizing”, not “alkalizing”.
This same terminology is used when measuring pH. In a process called “titration”, you measure how much acid it takes to neutralize an unknown basic solution. If you add too much acid, the pH drops below 7.0 and the mixture becomes acidic. Add too little acid, and the mixture remains basic. Your goal in titration is to add just enough acid to neutralize the basic solution. Then you can tell how alkaline it was, by the amount of acid that it took to neutralize the basic solution.
Similarly, when rainwater (slightly acidic) falls on the ocean (slightly basic), it has a neutralizing effect on the slightly alkaline ocean. Rainwater slightly decreases the pH of the ocean. Despite that, we don’t normally say that rainwater is “acidifying” the ocean. Instead, because it is moving the ocean towards neutral, we say it is neutralizing the ocean.
The problem with using the term “acidify” for what rainwater does to the ocean is that people misunderstand what is happening. Sure, a hard-core scientist hearing “acidify” might think “decreasing pH”. But most people think “Ooooh, acid, bad, burns the skin.” It leads people to say things like the following gem that I came across yesterday:
Rapid increases in CO2 (such as today) overload the system, causing surface waters to become corrosive.
In reality, it’s quite the opposite. The increase in CO2 is making the ocean, not more corrosive, but more neutral. Since both alkalinity and acidity corrode things, the truth is that rainwater (or more CO2) will make the ocean slightly less corrosive, by marginally neutralizing its slight alkalinity. That is the problem with the term “acidify”, and it is why I use and insist on the more accurate term “neutralize”. Using “acidify”, is both alarmist and incorrect. The ocean is not getting acidified by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2.
With that as prologue, let me go on to discuss the paper on oceanic pH.
The paper is called “High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison” (hereinafter pH2011). As the name suggests, they took a look at the actual variations of pH in a host of different parts of the ocean. They show 30-day “snapshots” of a variety of ecosystems. The authors comment:
These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100.
First, they show the 30-day snapshot of both the open ocean and a deepwater open ocean reef:
Figure 2. Continuous 30-day pH measurements of open ocean and deepwater reef. Bottom axis shows days. Vertical bar shows the amount of the possible pH change by 2100, as estimated in the pH2011 study.
I note that even in the open ocean, the pH is not constant, but varies by a bit over the thirty days. These changes are quite short, and are likely related to rainfall events during the month. As mentioned above, these slightly (and temporarily) neutralize the ocean surface, and over time mix in to the lower waters. Over Kingman reef, there are longer lasting small swings.
Compare the two regions shown in Fig. 1 to some other coral reef “snapshots” of thirty days worth of continuous pH measurements.
Figure 3. Thirty day “snapshots” of the variation in pH at two tropical coral reefs. Bottom axis shows days.
There are a couple of things of note in Figure 3. First, day-to-night variations in pH are from the CO2 that is produced by the reef life as a whole. Also, day-to-night swings on the Palmyra reef terrace are about a quarter of a pH unit … which is about 60% more than the projected change from CO2 by the year 2100.
Moving on, we have the situation in a couple of upwelling areas off of the California coast:
Figure 4. Thirty day pH records of areas of oceanic upwelling. This upwelling occurs, among other places, along the western shores of the continents.
Here we see even greater swings of pH, much larger than the possible predicted change from CO2. Remember that this is only over the period of a month, so there will likely be an annual component to the variation as well.
Figure 5 shows what is going on in kelp forests.
Figure 5. pH records in kelp forests
Again we see a variety of swings of pH, both long- and short-term. Inshore, we find even larger swings, as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Two pH records from a near-shore and an estuarine oceanic environment.
Again we see large pH changes in a very short period of time, both in the estuary and the near-shore area.
My conclusions from all of this?
First, there are a number of places in the ocean where the pH swings are both rapid and large. The life in those parts of the ocean doesn’t seem to be bothered by either the size or the speed these swings.
Second, the size of the possible pH change by 2100 is not large compared to the natural swings.
Third, due to a host of buffering mechanisms in the ocean, the possible pH change by 2100 may be smaller, but is unlikely to be larger, than the forecast estimate shown above.
Fourth, I would be very surprised if we’re still burning much fossil fuel ninety years from now. Possible, but doubtful in my book. So from this effect as well, the change in oceanic pH may well be less than shown above.
Fifth, as the authors commented, some parts of the ocean are already experiencing conditions that were not forecast to arrive until 2100 … and are doing so with no ill effects.
As a result, I’m not particularly concerned about a small change in oceanic pH from the change in atmospheric CO2. The ocean will adapt, some creatures’ ranges will change a bit, some species will be slightly advantaged and others slightly disadvantaged. But CO2 has been high before this. Overall, making the ocean slightly more neutral will likely be beneficial to life, which doesn’t like alkalinity but doesn’t mind acidity at all.
Finally, let me say that I love scientific studies like this, that actually use real observations rather than depending on theory and models. For some time now I’ve been pointing out that oceanic pH is not constant … but until this study I didn’t realize how variable it actually is. It is a measure of the “ivory tower” nature of much of climate science that the hysteria about so-called “acidification” has been going on for so long without an actual look at the actual ocean to see what difference a small change towards neutrality might actually make.
My best regards to everyone,
w.
NOTE: For those hard-core scientists that still want to call adding a small amount of acid to a basic solution “acidifying” the basic solution, and who claim that is the only correct “scientific terminology”, I recommend that you look at and adopt the scientific terminology from titration. That’s the terminology used when actually measuring pH in the lab. In that terminology, when you move towards neutral (pH 7), it’s called “neutralization”.
Not sure if this applies here, but “which” ≠ “that:”
“Why Using WHICH and THAT Correctly is Important for Scientists:”
http://home.earthlink.net/~llica/wchmport.htm
I hope this is helpful.
Could you possibly send this to Mark Lynas? He seems to believe he understands this but clearly can’t as he didn’t refer to anything here and believes quite the opposite. My research tells me he is working for a political end so actual scientific data just gets in his way.
It seems to me that, from the point of view of a proponent of AGW , these dire projections of ocean “acidification” pose a bit of a conundrum.
If the oceans were warming, as we are told they are, then the oceans would be outgassing vast quantities of CO2, not absorbing it (some suggestions are about 600 gigatons outgassed per 1 degree celcius rise). If the oceans are absorbing “dangerous” quantities of CO2 they must be cooling… so where is the warming that is supposed to be in the oceanic “pipeline”.
The problem of course is that even if temperatures remain fairly static or fall a bit, the “Climate Disruption” crew now have a new dire threat to mobilise behind. “The world is cooling and the oceans are dying!!!”
Richard Lewis says: …”If not narrowly defined, “neutralization” suggests movement to a state of NO hydrogen ions, which is objectively incorrect.”
Codswallop. Water, which is what Willis is talking about, ALWAYS has hydrogen ions in it .
You know, because it’s called H2O, as in H+ and OH- ions.
derrrr….
Topologically speaking, the lumen of the intestines, and hence the stomach contents are exterior to the body and, as was mentioned, we depend on an intact mucus layer to protect the stomach wall from the acid it secretes. Furthermore, the stomach contents are neutralized by the alkaline pancreatic juices, such that there is a pH gradient through the intestines from acidic near the pylorus to around 8 farther down the line.
When the body’s internal fluids become acidic, we are in deep trouble. Our bodies work very hard to keep the blood at ph 7.4 ± .05
There are several species of animals that can live in the ocean and freshwater its true. Salmon and Barramundi for example and I’m sure there are several others but the point remains that alkalinity in and of itself is not an issue for species evolved to live in that environment.
I agree with the premise of the article that the changes seen to date are not catastrophic and the terminology of acidification vs neutralisation but the preamble tries to imply that acid is better than basic for life to thrive when in actual fact different organisms evolve to thrive in different environments. The preamble takes away credibility from an otherwise good article.
Willis and various commenters, thanks for an excellent post and discussion. I had thought I had a good understanding of alkalinity vs acidity, but have learned a great deal from this thread, especially about the general preference (or at least tolerance) by most life forms for acidity over alkalinity.
From down under. I suspect ocean fish do not enter river systems because that is not where their favourite tucker hangs out. The barramundi is caught in both salt and fresh water habitats in northern Oz. Great eating too. I suggest one one of you fishos garner an appropriate research grant and visit our Kimberley or Northern Territory or N.Qld. Skip the wet season though, it’s a bit trying. Happy New Year from still not warm Sydney.
Sorry, but I think this post misses the point in many ways and is a continuation of lot of poor arguments from the sceptic side in this area. The pH of the sea matters because it massively influences how easy it is for molluscs, corals an other shell-forming animals to build their calcium carbonate shells. While it may be true that these shells don’t start seriously dissolving until conditions get much more acidic than any forecast says they will, lower pH’s place a stress on the organisms and slow the average rate of growth. Short-term pH fluctuations as described in the post are tolerable, but a lowering of the long term average pH gives a headwind to many organisms which they will struggle to adapt too because it’s hard to evolve your way around thermodynamics. Sure, the sea may have been more acidic in the geological past, but that doesn’t mean a change back to that state won’t have significant ecological effects.
Acidification, alkinization, neutralization… none seem accurate to me. You’re either increasing or decreasing pH, which is a measure of the concentration of hydronium ions in water. Acid and alkaline mean no more than hot and cold with a standard “room temp” thrown in to mean neutral. In either case you need an actual temperature or pH as a reference -though neutral and room temp seem to serve that purpose for many cases. Of course that’s the problem here, when the standard “neutral” is implied by the language, but is not accurate.
John T says:
December 29, 2011 at 10:45 am
Again I recommend that you look at the language of titration. The pH of 7 is called “neutral” for a reason. It is the pH of pure water. So it is quite different from the hot – room temperature – cold that you give as a metaphor. Room temperature is arbitrary. Pure water is neutral, and is the standard by which we name certain things as either acidic or basic (alkaline).
The problem for AGW supporters is that the word “neutralizing” has no alarmist value. If I say “CO2 is acidifying the ocean” the obvious conclusions are a) acid = bad, and b) soon the ocean will be acid. “Soon the ocean will be neutral” just doesn’t have the same ring.
But if I make the more accurate statement, that CO2 is slightly neutralizing the ocean, then we can look at and discuss it objectively, without the hype and the baggage that the term “acidification” invariably brings with it.
w.
Thank you Willis, as always your posts are interesting and imformative. The topic concerning pH of the ocean is also important, but as somebody pointed out, the main difference between the oceans and fresh water is not so much a difference of pH as of salinity. When it comes to microbic life the dominant force is supposed to be the osmotic pressure – which of course mainly depends on the salinity, but it does not depend very much on what salt.
Maybe you could also write a post concerning this issue, hich is probably less concerned with climate issues, but might be more relevant for life in the oceans.
Evan Thomas
December 28, 2011 at 11:07 pm
####
Barramundi, yum! I’ve kept these in aquariums before (they come in as contaminants in shipment of other species from time to time as shy little 10 cm fry). I had one get to over 50 cm in brackish conditions. The tank I had him (protoandrous hermaphrodites) in sprung a bad leak. I set up a tiny 300 liter tank temporarily, but because of the loading, had multiple pump failures several days latter. By the time I got back from the shop with replacements, he was mostly dead. So I eat him. He was delicious.
One of my Egyptian friends talks about the Nile Perch (Lates niloticus) being a prized game fish and one of his favorite for eating. Its a very close relative.
Jon Tuck says:
December 29, 2011 at 3:29 am (Edit)
Thanks, Jon. Of course the pH of the sea matters, no one is disputing that. The point I am making is that the projected possible changes in pH are smaller (and infinitely slower) than the natural variations of the ocean pH. This means the shell-forming animals currently live and thrive in a pH well below that forecast for 2100.
Not necessarily. See my post, “The Reef Abides“.
While “evolve your way around thermodynamics” makes a great sound bite, it doesn’t make sense. Life drives chemical reactions uphill all the time … where is your thermodynamics then?
You say that “doesn’t mean [it] won’t have” significant effects? I suppose one could get more vague than that, but it would be difficult. Sure, anything’s possible, but your fears about unlikely outcomes are not supported by the science. The oceanic life is hugely adaptable. Members of the same families of creatures live all over the ocean. Not only that, but species and assemblages of species are replacing each other constantly as the oceanic conditions change. The change in pH from Hawaii to Alaska is about the same pH change that is possible (but by no means certain) by 2100. And within that, the pH, and every other oceanic factor, is always varying.
The ocean is not some fixed thing. It changes constantly. The only creatures that have survived are those that can react and respond to those changing conditions.
Finally, much of the important stuff in the ocean, the small stuff that everything else depends on (and eats), have short lifespans. The advantage of that is evolution, evolution, evolution. In addition, many of them have thousands and some even tens of thousands of offspring. Talk about evolutionary advantage, having tens of thousands of offspring every generation is huge.
So no, Jon, I’m not concerned. You are free to think the oceanic life will not adapt and evolve and survive such a small change in pH just fine, as it has done for millions of years. I think it will do just fine.
w.
HELLO? SCIENCE?
Pure water is NOT pH 7.0.
Willis Eschenbach says: December 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm
“Again I recommend that you look at the language of titration. The pH of 7 is called “neutral” for a reason. It is the pH of pure water.”
But the sea is not pure water, which is of no more relevance that, say, pure H2SO4. What counts is the pKa of the buffer system that surrounds you. That is the central point of any “titration”. And for the sea, it is greater than 7.
prjindigo says:
December 29, 2011 at 3:20 pm
HELLO? SCIENCE? HOW ABOUT A CITATION FOR THAT CLAIM?
I’m a huge fan of the scientific method, and I’m always willing to learn. My understanding has always been that pH of 7 was that of pure water.
If I’m wrong, hey, I’m willing to learn. But SHOUTING AT ME WITH NO CITATIONS is no way to go through life, my friend.
w.
“James of the West” at best overstates in saying “That is why all of the ocean animals dont swim into neutral river systems…”. “Animals” is a vague term, but some sharks swim into rivers and huge numbers of salmon and some types of trout do do (they may spend a few weeks near the mouth of the river to adapt but they do adapt and quickly) – that’s their life, they’ve been doing it for millenia.
“Purple Toad” points to salinity not pH as the concern of creatures who live in water, but does not mention that many fish do move from fresh to salt to fresh water during their life.
That’s the life of salmon and the type of trout called steelhead.
There are salmon who stay in lakes – called “Kokanee”, and of course steelhead are an exception in the trout family, which suggests that over a long time both those species adapted.
Nick Stokes says:
December 29, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Thanks, Nick. I was talking about the language, and about what is called “neutral” pH in general, not about pH in any specific complex solution.
In terms of the ocean, as you imply, the carbon chemistry there is quite complex. It is far from enough to specify simply the pH. Alkalinity, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), salinity, and aragonite saturation levels all play a part, as do other elements such as silicon and potassium.
Finally, you can’t just use what happens in the test tube to understand the chemical processes in the ocean. The oceanic life is not driven by chemistry. Quite the contrary.
The oceanic chemistry is driven by life.
All the best,
w.
Keith Sketchley,
It makes one wonder if folks understand what an estuary or a lagoon is. They are bodies of partially salt water. Sometimes they are nearly as salty as the ocean, and sometimes they’re almost fresh water. Plenty of fish and shellfish live in them, and the salinity – which changes with the tide [and thus changes the pH] – causes no problems.
I was thinking last night that there are freshwater mussels and snails and such. They are making their shells out of calcium carbonate just like their oceanic brethren. Now, freshwater streams are actually slightly acidic (pH 5-7). If a decline in oceanic pH from 8.15 to 8 by the year 2100 is supposed to be so dangerous from dissolving shells, then how do freshwater mussel shells not dissolve in conditions that are actually acidic?
Obviously, more than pH is involved in the deal … always more to learn. Life is way too short. As is the day. Back to work.
w.
Willis,
What an incredibly immature response. As I have said several times on this site, including a couple of times on this thread, you make valuable contributions here. Those contributions are undermined by your tendency to go over the top, and to be a belligerent ass when such is pointed out to you. And you have a real problem with admitting it when you are wrong. You will twist and turn and hang your hat on gramar and punctuation flames, rather than admit the plainly obvious. In doing this, you ridicule your own work. It cannot be trusted, as if it is wrong you cannot be trusted to acknowledge that.
This,incidenlty, is precisely the problem with the RealClimate Team. Spin and spin, but never acknowledge error, however obvious. You place youself in poor company.
You opened your salvo on me with “I said no such thing” and then proceeded to impugn me for it. I guess “Yes, it was close to what I said, …” followed by a bunch of grammar flames and snarky diversions is as close to an apology as you are capable, huh?
Back to the substance of the matter, you did in fact say that life does not like alkalinity, but it doesnt mind acidity at all. And that assinine statement remains false, for all of the reasons illuminated above that you chose to ignore, in deference to childish argumentativeness.
Grow up.
[JJ, you continue to miss the point. I will not allow you to put a false quotation into my mouth. If you object to something I said, quote it and we can discuss it. If I made a mistake, quote my exact words that you think are mistaken so that we’ll be in no mystery about exactly what you are talking about.
But do not make up your own quotation and pretend that quotation is mine. I won’t stand for it. That’s what quotation marks mean.
I see that you don’t like it that I busted you for making up a quotation. I can only assume that is because you want to be free to make up any kind of words and pretend that I said them. Sorry …
Look, JJ, you are the one who tried to pass off a false quotation as being mine. Now you want me to say I’m wrong? Sorry, my friend. I’m happy to say I’m wrong, but not when you are the one putting a fake quote into my mouth. That’s on you, not me.
w.]
JJ says:
Willis, “you have a real problem with admitting it when you are wrong.”
Incorrect, JJ. On the very rare occasions that Willis has made a mistake, he owns up to it and corrects it. You must be confusing him with Nick Stokes, or Phil., or Alan Statham, or Joel Shore. Or JJ.
Willis, nicely done, again.
Thanks
Hi Willis! This is a very brilliant post about real science. Nice observations. You said you love scientific studies, well, this site about ph scales may catch your interest: http://phscale.net/
Get back to me and tell me what you think.